Re: [RE] Objectives summary for a paper ...

Richard,Why do you would think end-point synchronization is out-of-scope?It would seem that the link would define when clock-sync framesare sent, the meaning of their content, and how that informationis passed between the client-and-MAC (for the clock master) andbetween MAC-and-client (for the clock slave).I admit that additional definitions are needed to determinehow the voting and synchronization is managed in a bridge,but most of this can probably be implementation dependent.As such, it doesn't seem like the clock-sync issues are mostlyan 802.3 issue, although some of the "internal bridge" magicprobably be out of scope.Am I missing something here?DVJ David V. James
3180 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Home: +1.650.494.0926
+1.650.856.9801
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax: +1.360.242.5508
Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Richard Brand
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 4:01 PM
To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [RE] Objectives summary for a paper ...

Yes, that is a good one although mostly out of scope for 802.3.
Richard
Dirceu Cavendish wrote:

I think you have captured the main requirements there, Michael. I would
just add end-point synchronization, which is synch between
applications...not network elements.
Dirceu Cavendish
NEC Labs America
10080 North Wolfe Road Suite SW3-350
Cupertino, CA 95014
Tel: 408-863-6041 Fax: 408-863-6099
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]
On Behalf Of Michael Johas Teener
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 2:52 PM
To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [RE] Objectives summary for a paper ...
I¹m writing a paper on Residential Ethernet that needs to go to the
publisher in the next few days. It has to be kept reasonably short, so
I¹ve
compressed the objectives a bit. Before I send them in, I¹d like to make
sure that I haven¹t missed something important. Here is the relevant
section
of text:
----
The first meeting of the study group took place on September 30, 2004,
in
Ottawa, Canada, and agreed on a set of objectives which were further
refined
in meetings leading up to the November 2004 802.3 meetings in San
Antonio[1]
:
1.    Plug and Play (which means that all of the various automatic and
self-configuring capabilities of 802.3 will be required, not optional).
2.    Links must be 100Mb/s full duplex or greater (requires the use of
switches to connect together more that two devices). All existing 802.3
physical layers that meet this requirement are fully supported.
3.    Isochronous services will be provided which give managed priority
access to specified chunks of transmission duration within 8kHz
³cycles²
(fundamentally the same technique used by IEEE 1394).
4.    Isochronous services can use up to 75% of the link bandwidth,
while
the remaining is always available to best-effort traffic (³best-effort²
is
normal Ethenet traffic).
5.    There will be a mechanism to request/assign resources for
isochronous
services (e.g. bandwidth, channel) and the default rule(s) for managing
the
resources
6.    High quality synchronization services that provides all stations
with
a low jitter ³house clock².
7.    Isochronous bridging to IEEE 1394, IEEE 802.11, and IEEE 802.15.3.

[1] The actual objectives list is somewhat longer. This is an
aggregation of
that list.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
                   Michael D. Johas Teener
http://public.xdi.org/=Michael.Johas.Teener - PGP ID 0x3179D202
--------------------- www.plumblinks.com ----------------------